About your Search

20130201
20130209
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
. this is the biggest tax in the world but it's a small tax and one of the measures with a car seat is pro-child and objectively anti-family. >> host: what about some of the other social forces leaning in this direction? for example working women, women going to college and all those things pushing us toward a world of having a child could be more difficult for some. >> guest: it could probably be run up against biology. anything that pushes your average age of first births backwards ultimately is going to push you to have fewer children. the average age of first birth is about 28 years old, 29 years old. it used to be about 22 and part of this as we is we made college virtually required for middle-class both men and women and as you push back the age of first family formations of people can really think about getting married right out of college to 22 and april used to be married and settled and ready to begin family life. again you start pushing that horizon where you might be having children further back and this causes if you want to have a bunch of kids close together which only crazy
-run the care centers where basically your taxes pay for the government to free the day care center so you can then drop your kids off while you go to work. sort of a circular sounding system and it shows the actual effect is pretty small on fertility. for every 25% increase in the government spending on these programs there isn't a 0.6 increase on the rate in the short term so what is the difference then between france and the countries that you see the rates are much lower around 1.3 or 1.5 and the difference is cultural life think. we have places where there is a longstanding commitment to try to make family life work and the of been obsessed with all this demographic stuff right after the first world war. so it helps to take things seriously over the long haul in the demographic tide. >> host: i would like to come back to the things that countries are trying and what works and what doesn't. but let's back up a little bit and talk about the cause. what role does religion played? it seems to be an important predictor who is going to have children and who is not, but not religion in the sense
, and a few other companies, they want to go to get salaries tax deferred come high earners were talking about. and somebody goes to congress and then eventually there's this little code put into the tax in the late 1970 called the 401(k). these high-end executives get the right to put some of the money aside on a tax-deferred basis. no one thinks he think about this, except for one man, an attorney. and he sees that one should just be high-end executives? issued to all of us. he gets the reagan administration did agree with his viewpoint. this takes place by the time, early 1980s, then the next part which almost nobody foresaw is the idea that, wait a minute, you don't have to get people in pensions, to request the 401(k)s are really a good substitute for pensions. this is where the corporate cost cutters start creeping in and they said if you're going to match 3% to 6%, it's a lot cheaper than funding of pension. and besides, a lot of people won't sign up anyway so don't worry about the 6%. so and should over a period of many years, the numbers drift down to where we are today. >> host: this
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3